Ask.fm Says Most Messages Came From Troubled Teen's Own IP Address While New Cyberbullying Law Is Widely Panned

from the a-problematic-issue-addressed-with-progressively-worse-ideas dept

The recent suicides of two teenagers, Hannah Smith and Retaeh Parsons, have prompted officials to take actions to crack down on cyberbullying. Smith committed suicide after extensive bullying on ask.fm, a social Q&A site that skews heavily towards teen users. Parsons' case is a little more troubling, as it involves an alleged rape and the extensive circulation of pictures of the attack.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron responded to Smith's suicide by calling for a boycott of "vile site" ask.fm, making the same convenient mistake many politicians do -- blaming a website for the actions of a small percentage of users. Fortunately, Cameron didn't call for any further legislation, pointing out that laws dealing with harassment (online and offline) are already on the books in the UK.

Ask.fm responded by stating it would hire more moderators and make more of an effort to track and prevent abuse. It also opened an investigation into the activity on Smith's account and returned with some very interesting findings. According to its investigation, 98% of the messages "aimed" at Hannah Smith's account came from her own IP address. Smith's father has, quite reasonably, asked the site owners to substantiate this claim. He's also asked why they haven't come forward with information on the other 2%.

Scott Freeman, founder of The Cybersmile Foundation, said: "It's very easy to get carried away in this circle of online self-abuse when you're alone in your room. [Children] check it, and keep checking, and it evolves into a kind of self-harm.

"We've seen instances where people have actually lined themselves up for abuse, posting a question like "do you think I'm pretty?" knowing that they'll get torn apart. What we're dealing with now is a completely new concept. It's the hate that's resonating through all of our social media coming through to our youth."

You see, I can think of maybe four or five young people I've encountered on Tumblr who I would (non-judgementally, analytically) suspect have sent themselves anonymous abuse messages in order to express their self-hatred, attack themselves through the abstraction of answering anonymous aggression. It's easy to do – just have an additional browser where you're not signed in to Tumblr and leave your inbox open to anonymous things. Cleaner than a razorblade, its simple to express your self-loathing through an avatar of external hatred.

This isn't to say that Hannah Smith attacked herself, and absent any evidence from ask.fm, there's no reason to believe she did. But the possibility remains, and it's probably not as unlikely as we parents might hope.

Parson's death, on the other hand, has prompted a huge overreaction by Nova Scotia's government, which rushed through a very terrible piece of cyerbullying legislation.The new law puts the power completely in the hands of the accuser, removes any sort of objective standard and levies harsh penalties against the accused without allowing them to defend themselves at any point.

Once again, a tragedy has resulted in legislation that makes things worse for internet users in Nova Scotia (the bill does not address regular bullying), while ignoring the laws already in place to deal with the incident that began the entire cycle.

Fortunately, the reaction to the new law has been overwhelmingly negative. Putting aside the fact that legislators often enjoy a good coattail ride, the responses from elsewhere in Canada seem to indicate no one's interested in subjecting themselves to this legislative disaster.

One might hope that the law will only be used in serious cases, but that's hardly to its credit: Legislators shouldn't be writing laws they don't want enforced. We are talking about fundamental rights and freedoms: Taking away someone's phone or banning him from the Internet represents a serious impediment to education and employment. Access to a lengthy and costly appeals process is a woefully inadequate safeguard against abuses.

Well-intentioned though it is, it unwisely defines cyberbullying in overly broad terms as “any electronic communication . . . that is intended or ought reasonably be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person's health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.” The Star gets letters to the editor every day whose very point is to cause humiliation and distress to people with whom the writers disagree, if not to undermine their self-esteem and reputation. Are all of these people cyberbullies? There's something called free speech in this country. The new law crowds it.

Nova Scotia's law is so unpopular finding positive editorials is nearly impossible. National Post columnist Chris Selley expresses as much towards the end of a recent article:

When it's done spoon-feeding readers the obvious, it wraps up its non-argument with this.

It's time the governments of Canada go to bat for their youth, and place legal barriers into the mix, as [Wayne] MacKay suggests. Such legislation could help prevent further suicides in the same ilk as Parsons, Todd, and Hubley.

The Wayne MacKay quoted here is a law professor at Dalhousie University and is heading up a push for this legislation to be enacted across Canada. One would think a law professor would know the difference between good laws and bad laws and not actively pursue enacting such a problematic piece of legislation. (Then again, we have a president with a background in constitutional law, and that clearly hasn't resulted in constitutional rights being protected.)

The op-ed is finally put out of its misery by the final sentence, an insipid cluster of words that can barely muster the enthusiasm to get to the ending punctuation.

It certainly couldn't hurt.

Yeah, actually it could. For several examples, see nearly every other editorial written about the new cyberbullying bill. Anything recommended by the half-hearted phrase "It certainly couldn't hurt" is something obviously devoid of positive attributes. When you have to resort to using negative statements in order to "praise" something, it's time to reconsider your support.

Reader Comments

And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

But ask.fm seems still intent on dodging all responsibility. -- Even the minion isn't buying their claims...

A big problem with internet forums is that owners are solely intent on monetary gain without recognizing civil responsibilities in a complex society; they write TOS pages saying exactly that they'll monetize users any way can but users have no rights or recourse whatsoever. -- But that's balloney! It's just not the way civil society works, and that's why/symptom of it falling apart.

Needs be made explicit in law that an internet forum is very little different in its rules from a bulletin board in what can be posted, nor much different from most social settings in other aspects. -- That means explicitly that the proposed law goes way too far, -- Definitely "on teh internets" must not give corporations getting money from those forums ANY special immunity.

Law is too important to be left to politicians. -- That's why civil enforcement in terms of owners moderating forums must be done, so that politicians have no excuse for their tyranny. -- OH, and you kids have a certain duty to limit your own excesses TOO.

Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

As with a lot of your posts, I get the feeling that there are some good ideas lurking in there, but they're so crowded by the way you go off in five directions at once that it's hard to get a clear view of the points you're trying to make...

Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

In many ways humans are dumber than wild animals. At least wild animals don't engage in self destructive behavior like smoking and drinking. Even many great kings of the past, like Alexander the great, have fallen due to self destructive behavior.

Re: Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

Re: Re: Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

I said wild animals with the intent of excluding humans giving them anything (ie: domestic animals). I already know that animals, when given alcohol by humans, would drink it. At least the animal is unaware of the fact that the alcohol is detrimental to their health. Humans willfully engage in self destructive behavior knowing its self destructive whereas wild animals, with no human intervention, do not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

Even red wine in moderation can be good for you. Coffee, in moderation, can be good for you. Too much of anything is bad for you. Doubtful animals get drunk in nature and if the fruit is bad for them it's doubtful the animals know that before eating it.

Your argument is basically that you don't like the way I worded my sentence. Grammar Nazi arguments aside my argument stands.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

If you want to be technical an animal could accidentally wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time and be attacked by a lion. Likewise, a human could accidentally wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time and have something bad happen to them. While this is technically self destructive that's clearly not what I meant by self destructive behavior. I meant engaging in behavior one knows is self destructive ahead of time.

I don't see animals jumping off cliffs very often (though I've heard of stories of animals that are practically tortured or at least given a very miserable life, by humans, committing suicide. Heck I had a friend that had a cat that seemed to be sick, after eating a pigeon (not sure if that's what caused the alleged sickness), trying to sit directly behind a parked car tire several times as if wanting the car to kill it upon backing out of the driveway). If a cat accidentally falls out a tree that's technically self destructive behavior. but that's not what I'm referring to, such a reference would be ridiculous and I shouldn't have to be that specific to thwart off grammar Nazis.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

Doubtful animals get drunk in nature and if the fruit is bad for them it's doubtful the animals know that before eating it.

They absolutely do get drunk. Obviously they don't know if it's bad for them. I don't know if they even realize it's not just normal fruit.

Your argument is basically that you don't like the way I worded my sentence.

I wasn't making an argument, I was just stating a fact you were apparently not aware of. However, I think your argument, that humans are "dumber" than wild animals, is not supported by the fact that humans engage in self destructive behavior more frequently than animals. The fact that a behavior is self destructive does not imply that it does not require intelligence to carry it out.

Re: Re: Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

You be wrong on that, a lot of animals love booze to the point that you can find a lot of them dead for drinking too much, is just they don't know how to manufacture it, others go after they preferred food no matter what it takes, like Honey Badgers found dead inside bee hives.

But in nature those are the ones that don't make it and don't procreate so although it happens they become less frequent in numbers as they succumb by themselves and can't pass that behavior ahead.

But for humans we don't have that, all those natural selection tools are abhorrent to our sense of survival, so how do we prevent that kind of outcome without natural tools? or should we prevent it at all?

Re: And the solution is/was for sites to do some moderating.

Not sure how far you want to take that 'site owners should be made responsible for moderating posts' angle, as considering how vitriolic, aggressive, and filled with trollish content your posts are a lot of the times, that means you'd very quickly find yourself 'moderated' out of existence on sites like this.

Self-cyberbullying is a form of self-harm

Interesting take from Nina Funell:

So what motivates this phenomenon and why have we heard so little about it?

According to [danah boyd], online self-harassment like that observed on Formspring or Ask.fm may represent a cry for help, a grab for attention, an opportunity to demonstrate toughness and resilience or a way of fishing for compliments from friends who jump in to defend against the abuse. Boyd also describes the behaviour as a form of ''digital self-harming'', stressing that teens who are in pain do not always lash out at others; very often they lash out at themselves. And occasionally they invite an audience to watch on.

For the ''digital self-harmer'' the presence of an audience appears to serve other purposes too. Anonymously calling oneself a ''loser'' online allows them to test out other people's attitudes: do other people see me this way too? Is my perception of myself shared universally?

Second, by inflicting harm on themselves before an audience, it makes their pain visible and therefore more'' 'real' ''. Finally, by giving others the impression that they are ''under attack'', the afflicted individual is able to communicate to others exactly what they are feeling: overwhelmed and under siege. And they can achieve this without ever having to risk saying the words: ''I'm in pain, I need your help.''

What this means is that while the abusive comments might be manufactured, the feelings they speak to are very much real.

Re: Self-cyberbullying is a form of self-harm

While a single IP Address might seems to conclude that it was from herself, this could easily be from a IP NAT Pool used by school computers, a popular teenage hangout, library, or any other public access point. I.E. from a technical perspective, I would at least hold off at least until more facts are known.

Re: Re: Self-cyberbullying is a form of self-harm

While a single IP Address might seems to conclude that it was from herself, this could easily be from a IP NAT Pool used by school computers, a popular teenage hangout, library, or any other public access point.

One hopes that is not what ask.fm means by "her own IP address". That would be near NSA-level doublespeak. Unless they're pretty much making stuff up (which is possible) that should mean an IP address connected to her home ISP account. Of course, the linked article doesn't even use the phrase "IP address" so who knows?

will say it again...

It's the war against anonymity.

Ideas should not be as important than the entity saying them.
What if an Idea was widely accepted even tho the rulers oppose it?
Can't have that now, can we.
Only the powerful and "influential" have good ideas because they said them, and the "influence" or "media" validates their ideas as legit and of course, the best. That status quo must be maintained.
For too long have ideas been allowed to form and grow without any person to blame or discredit. The internet is the breeding ground.

If no one is anonymous then ideas can be discredited because of WHO created them.
The status quo will be maintained.

Who am I ?
I am nothing more than a voice.
If Obama replied to this comment anonymously then his ideas would be equal to mine.

That's what makes anonymity so threatening to the established powers. Can't have us all being of equal stature now, can we.

Wait

" 98% of the messages "aimed" at Hannah Smith's account came from her own IP address. "

So now IP address is absolute proof of something? You don't think that his bully friends could have either spoofed the IP or had a rootkit or similar on the kids computer to send their hateful messages from there?

Come on guys... if you are going to argue that IP address doesn't mean anything in copyright cases, you need to stay on the same side of the argument the rest of the time too.

So dumb

what is just as sad as the terrible even that took place in Canada is the desire of certain politicians to be 'on the front page' introducing a new law to stop the cyber bullying. the desire is to be on the front page, not to stop the bullying at all! that is the main reason these type of bills are so ridiculous! they end up, as stated, making the whole issue worse than it already was, which was bad enough to begin with! instead of worrying about how they will look for doing something to 'protect the children', politicians need to stop, think seriously about the aim and consult with people who know what they are talking about! the 'porn filter' in the UK is another prime example of talking about doing something 'for the children' when no notice is taken of the experts before mouth is open far enough to get a van in it, let alone a foot!

Even if it was real bullying we must not forget that it's all about stupid teens. And boy they are stupid. I was stupid. They think they know everything and that they are the prime example of human beings. Lets not fool ourselves as it is the norm to a greater or lesser degree.

So, are we really ready to throw privacy, freedom of speech under the bus and stupid teenagers in jail just because of some broad term that really has its origin in teen stupidity? Why not do the most basic investigative job (you know, teens are stupid, they usually won't cover their tracks even if they know how) and give the bully a good, hard wrist slap (and possibly deprive him of his gaming) and offer support to the bullied instead?

Turn it off

I am so sick of people complaining about Internet bulling, it is the easiest thing to stop. Just turn the bloody thing off. If your kid keeps sneaking on then disconnect the connection to your home. To all you who say u "need" the Internet, stop bs-ing.. It may not be as easy but there are ways to live without it.
Maybe teach your kids to defend themselves, and monitor their use, it's easy coz the services aren't in the kids names so if you want to see activity and what not call ur provider and check. Step up and parent ur kids, I would rather my kid hate me for disconnecting the Internet and phones then be dead or in a mental hospital. Parents need to do their job and be parents.